Time for a new rule in this forum?

Lately we've had a big problem with people posting false "facts" without backing them up. When challenged, they simply deflect or flee the thread. I think we are better than that.

The new rule I'm proposing is simple: if you are posting a statement (for example "Senator Soandso took $5 million is bribes from the mob last year") that can be qualified with facts and figures, you must also provide a citation. This should be easy for everybody, since if you are citing facts you must have gotten them from somewhere.

Note this doesn't apply to opinions such as "I think Senator Soandso is corrupt."

Posting this to the forum itself for feedback rather than just to the moderators forum as I'm interested in community inputl

My only concern is how well it will be moderated. No offense, because the group just can't keep up with everything. That goes for both trying to keep up on threads and responding to what would likely be a ton more post reports. I could see it getting out of hand quickly as everybody either posts questionable citations (Breitbart, etc.), or none at all on a routine basis.

Could just be me, but the only thing worse than what we got is a forum with more rules that are not consistently enforced. And honestly that already happens a lot with the rules that are already in place.

So, no opinions allowed in this forum and only "facts" that come from "approved" sources count?

Sounds like a perfect echo chamber to me.

If one provides citations, then it can be up to another to REFUTE those citations...with other citations. That's a natural course of discussion. If one does not care to refute, then one does not need to. One can ignore the comment.

Since this is a political forum, in my opinion, is all opinions. If we happen to provide some facts, then great. If not, whatever.

So, here's the problem with that. All I have to do is state it's my opinion. Then we're back to ground zero, are we not?

Why not just have somebody ASK for citations, like Groucho did. And then people can make their own decisions from there on. I've asked for similar in the past. And like others have said, politics move so fast, either I change my stance or I don't.

And even if "tolerant" sources are used...which we do tend to use from time to time...a person could quote certain parts of it which are more "relevant" to their comment. The same article from an acceptable source can get two completely different perspectives when quoted (probably more, given our creative minds).

Just saw the proof about what I was saying in the POTUS thread. A new rule will simply not work because a select few will never take a moment to take in the spirit of a Cite Rule and work with it. Bluntly put, the trolls. Much easier to for everybody to ignore them, or the moderators stop letting it happen with something more effective than a Cite rule.

A valid concern given the volume of posts on this forum, especially lately. The mods can't read everything, so like all rules it would be up to the community to report violations.

It's those reports that I think will not be able to be managed. I know from personal experience that there are already many reports that seem to go nowhere. Nothing happens, no rationale given to the reporter for why nothing is done. If that is because there is just too much to handle, then it will only get much worse.

Quote:

And I think most of us can agree on what is a legitimate source (Fox, CNN) versus a bad one (Breitbart, Daily Kos).

Yes, most. There probably should just be a different solution for those that are not willing to work with the rest when it comes to admitting the difference between legit journalism and Brietbart.

While I don't use Breitbart all the time, and feel free to check my citing of website links to verify this, it does give another perspective.

Once again, if you don't like the citation provided...get off the couch and grab your own. That's what a natural discussion is comprised of. If the source doesn't appear to be pertinent to the discussion, then I'm sure somebody will be nice enough to provide a counter example.

Personally, and speaking merely as a member and occasional poster, it will be way more effort than I am willing to put in, causing me to post even less. I know that will break many hearts here, but if it is true for some others, activity level will suffer even more. I am secure in what I post and in the validity of the posts; others are free to accept it or not. If it is something important and another member legitimately questions me, I will provide a credible citation. I think this is the way it should be.

I think such a rule will also lead to an onerous tit for tat, one that would drag down the forum in even more nonsensical minutiae and rancor.

There is more, but I'll largely keep those out of the discussion for now.

IMO the problem is not so much the lack of citation but the trolling behavior (of which use of fake news is often a part). It's hard to say exactly what trolling is, but it's something we know when we see it, and usually it happens frequently enough with some people.

I think one way to address that is some method of escalation -- for example 3 warnings = 1 suspension, and 2 suspensions = 1 permanent ban. Maybe such a rule already exists, but I don't think it's applied effectively, because I don't see the behavior curbed well enough. Some people are warned, they stop for a while, and resume the same stuff again.

I don't see the point of this proposed rule. It won't stop trolling. For example, Grundle objected when his Wikipedia article about Michelle Obama's bare arms was taken down, saying that he had included numerous citations.

IMO the problem is not so much the lack of citation but the trolling behavior (of which use of fake news is often a part). It's hard to say exactly what trolling is, but it's something we know when we see it, and usually it happens frequently enough with some people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGM

how about all new threads and posts are first submitted for approval by a panel made up of sensitive and borderline suicidal liberals who can't seem to handle a Trump presidency like an adult...?